Do Calvinists believe that middle knowledge exists at all?

Do you not believe in the existence of counterfactual information? Or do you believe the information exists, but that God just doesn't let it factor into His decision of which world to create?

Do you believe that God exhaustively knows what decisions you would have made if you had been born in another time and place? If not, then I don't see any principled distinction between your view of reality and the average open theist's view of reality. You both would argue that the nature of reality is such that God cannot know anything other than what He has decreed.

You're arguing for the existence of things that don't exist, and then falsely projecting an imaginary "inability" on God.
 
You're arguing for the existence of things that don't exist, and then falsely projecting an imaginary "inability" on God.
If you believe that, then it seems to me that you share a belief in common with open theists over against Arminians and Molinists. Since you think that God literally cannot know anything which He has not decreed into existence, you share the open theist belief that the nature of reality prevents God from knowing anything other than what He has decreed. Since Arminians and Molinists both believe that God knows the free will choices of creatures which He did not ordain, you would take sides with the open theists and argue that the very nature of reality proves that God couldn't know such choices. Is this correct?
 
Since you think that God literally cannot know anything which He has not decreed into existence,

I have already explained to you the fallacious nature of your criticism.
Since you continue to intentionally misrepresent me, no charitable discussion is possible with you.

you share the open theist belief that the nature of reality prevents God from knowing anything other than what He has decreed.

No, I don't believe that at all.
Why is it that anti-Calvinists feel the need to constantly MISRPRESENT Calvinism and Calvinists?

Is this correct?

You know very well that it is not "correct".
 
The fact that we were created for this time and place is so obvious that it hardly needs to be stated. Our very existence is proof that we were created for the time in which we currently exist. But my question pertains to the hypothetical worlds that God could have created instead, and to the extent of God's knowledge regarding those hypothetical worlds.
God can "hypothetically" do anything.
 
Do you not believe in the existence of counterfactual information? Or do you believe the information exists, but that God just doesn't let it factor into His decision of which world to create?

Do you believe that God exhaustively knows what decisions you would have made if you had been born in another time and place? If not, then I don't see any principled distinction between your view of reality and the average open theist's view of reality. You both would argue that the nature of reality is such that God cannot know anything other than what He has decreed.
Omniscient means all knowing. It’s one of God’s attributes.
 
Omniscient means all knowing. It’s one of God’s attributes.
"In this view, God knows all things. God knows all things. I want to emphasize that point because if you read any book that critiques this view they will say that the open view doesn't think that God knows all things. I haven't met an open theist who denies that God knows all things; God is omniscient. Reality and God's knowledge are co-extensive." - Greg Boyd

It looks to me like your statement needs to be further qualified, does it not? For reference see this video starting at the 10:09 mark.

edit: I modified the link so that it goes directly to the spot in which he makes this statement.
 
"In this view, God knows all things. God knows all things. I want to emphasize that point because if you read any book that critiques this view they will say that the open view doesn't think that God knows all things. I haven't met an open theist who denies that God knows all things; God is omniscient. Reality and God's knowledge are co-extensive." - Greg Boyd

It looks to me like your statement needs to be further qualified, does it not? For reference see this video starting at the 10:09 mark.

edit: I modified the link so that it goes directly to the spot in which he makes this statement.
My statement does not need further qualification. God is omniscient and if He is all knowing (and He is) then there is nothing that is open in the future.
 

Do Calvinists believe that middle knowledge exists at all?​


For those who are interested in a Consistent answer to these questions:


01:54:04 God Foreknowledge Of If/Then Statements Properly Understood (Counterfactuals)
01:58:23 Addressing “Responsibility” (Adam In Garden Example)
02:00:28 Addressing Fatalistic Assumptions (Do your posts Matter?)
02:02:54 Example; Do your “Tweets” Matter? (God Gives Means “Meaning”)
02:06:13 Addressing the phrase “There’s Nothing You Can Do”
02:07:21 Everything Has Meaning Because God Gives It Meaning Established

02:09:32 Calvinists Do Not “Limit” God (Molinism Refuted)
02:11:42 “Let’s Suppose Calvinism Is True” Ok Let’s…
02:12:56 “Middle Knowledge” Defined And Refuted (Logical Order Problem)
02:15:39 Hebrews 1:3 Brought In To Destroy “Middle Knowledge”
02:16:21 Counterfactuals Biblically Understood

02:17:02 “Let’s Just Suppose Freewill Is True” ZERO Justification
02:18:08 It’s Logically Impossible For A Calvinist To Also Be A Molinist
02:20:44 Jeremiah 19:5 Correctly Explained

 
For those who are interested in a Consistent answer to these questions:


01:54:04 God Foreknowledge Of If/Then Statements Properly Understood (Counterfactuals)
01:58:23 Addressing “Responsibility” (Adam In Garden Example)
02:00:28 Addressing Fatalistic Assumptions (Do your posts Matter?)
02:02:54 Example; Do your “Tweets” Matter? (God Gives Means “Meaning”)
02:06:13 Addressing the phrase “There’s Nothing You Can Do”
02:07:21 Everything Has Meaning Because God Gives It Meaning Established

02:09:32 Calvinists Do Not “Limit” God (Molinism Refuted)
02:11:42 “Let’s Suppose Calvinism Is True” Ok Let’s…
02:12:56 “Middle Knowledge” Defined And Refuted (Logical Order Problem)
02:15:39 Hebrews 1:3 Brought In To Destroy “Middle Knowledge”
02:16:21 Counterfactuals Biblically Understood

02:17:02 “Let’s Just Suppose Freewill Is True” ZERO Justification
02:18:08 It’s Logically Impossible For A Calvinist To Also Be A Molinist
02:20:44 Jeremiah 19:5 Correctly Explained

Excellent podcast. I have listened to it 3 times.
 
For those who are interested in a Consistent answer to these questions:


01:54:04 God Foreknowledge Of If/Then Statements Properly Understood (Counterfactuals)
01:58:23 Addressing “Responsibility” (Adam In Garden Example)
02:00:28 Addressing Fatalistic Assumptions (Do your posts Matter?)
02:02:54 Example; Do your “Tweets” Matter? (God Gives Means “Meaning”)
02:06:13 Addressing the phrase “There’s Nothing You Can Do”
02:07:21 Everything Has Meaning Because God Gives It Meaning Established

02:09:32 Calvinists Do Not “Limit” God (Molinism Refuted)
02:11:42 “Let’s Suppose Calvinism Is True” Ok Let’s…
02:12:56 “Middle Knowledge” Defined And Refuted (Logical Order Problem)
02:15:39 Hebrews 1:3 Brought In To Destroy “Middle Knowledge”
02:16:21 Counterfactuals Biblically Understood

02:17:02 “Let’s Just Suppose Freewill Is True” ZERO Justification
02:18:08 It’s Logically Impossible For A Calvinist To Also Be A Molinist
02:20:44 Jeremiah 19:5 Correctly Explained

So I actually watched part of this video. I watched the first 10-15 minutes and then zipped around to sections more relevant to this OP (excellent indexing, btw). What I heard followed a pattern: having established the three foundational prooftexts, use those three to then shoo away all other verses used to justify a contrary position. In this manner, contrary prooftexts aren't dealt with on their own terms, but are simply assumed to have an alternative explanation since they would "contradict" the three foundational prooftexts given at the beginning.

The problem for me is that I don't see at all how those three foundational verses establish what the author is claiming. I heard the use of the words "logical" and "illogical" a lot, and I don't think it logically follows from those verses that God cannot create free agents. I don't think it logically follows that the existence of free will means that one somehow exists independently of God. I may not be able to live for long without breathing; but no one would reason that because I need a constantly supply of air in my lungs, the air must necessarily be controlling my thoughts! In short, a whole lot of assumptions are bundled in with those three verses that haven't been adequately justified (and prolific use of the word "logical" doesn't count as an argument).

The author went on to say that God only knows counterfactuals as He knows what else He might decree. I don't think this explanation makes sense of the biblical examples at all. I could list those examples here, but I'm pretty certain that the response would be something to this effect: "If you think those are examples of God knowing things He hasn't actually decreed, then you are assuming they can exist independently of God and that's not logical."

I understand that the first episode (referenced at the beginning) contains explanations of why it cannot be possible for God to create agents with free will. Maybe I'll browse that one sometime. But as it is, I'm not at all persuaded that these three foundational verses can be used to justify the position taken in this video.
 
The author went on to say that God only knows counterfactuals as He knows what else He might decree.

If this is so, then God has middle knowledge. Middle knowledge is a libertarian free will concept. Unless he means that God could not have actually chosen the alternative option. Then we have that God had no other choice but to give us no other choice, ie God would be just as predetermined as we are.
 
If this is so, then God has middle knowledge. Middle knowledge is a libertarian free will concept. Unless he means that God could not have actually chosen the alternative option. Then we have that God had no other choice but to give us no other choice, ie God would be just as predetermined as we are.
I think what he means is that God knows what else He could have chosen to decree, much in the same way that you or I might contemplate whether we will have a hamburger or a hot dog for lunch. If you go with the hamburger, you will always know that you could have chosen the hot dog instead. That's his idea of counterfactual information.
 
"In this view, God knows all things. God knows all things. I want to emphasize that point because if you read any book that critiques this view they will say that the open view doesn't think that God knows all things. I haven't met an open theist who denies that God knows all things; God is omniscient. Reality and God's knowledge are co-extensive." - Greg Boyd

It looks to me like your statement needs to be further qualified, does it not? For reference see this video starting at the 10:09 mark.

edit: I modified the link so that it goes directly to the spot in which he makes this statement.
Does this include the future? Your quote is quite deceptive. I hope not deliberately.
 
Does this include the future? Your quote is quite deceptive. I hope not deliberately.
That's the rub. Boyd's definition of omniscience is that God knows the future exhaustively; but the nature of reality is such that because the future is partly composed of possibilities, God can only know the future as possibilities (except for those things which He has determined). He would compare this to creating a rock that God cannot lift. If the future is partly composed of possibilities and partly of certainties, then God knows it exhaustively as such.

The point I've been making is that Calvinists who attack middle knowledge on the basis that God cannot know things which He has not decreed into existence share a common metaphysical assumption with Greg Boyd and the other open theists.
 
That's the rub. Boyd's definition of omniscience is that God knows the future exhaustively; but the nature of reality is such that because the future is partly composed of possibilities, God can only know the future as possibilities (except for those things which He has determined). He would compare this to creating a rock that God cannot lift. If the future is partly composed of possibilities and partly of certainties, then God knows it exhaustively as such.

The point I've been making is that Calvinists who attack middle knowledge on the basis that God cannot know things which He has not decreed into existence share a common metaphysical assumption with Greg Boyd and the other open theists.
I'll add one thing. The relevance of this point is connected to the assertion often made by Calvinists (as well as many non-Calvinists) that open theism is a heretical belief. If it's true that many Calvinists share a common metaphysical assumption with open theists; and if it's true that both groups agree that God cannot know anything other than what He has decreed into existence; then the difference between a Calvinist and an open theist is not primarily their view of God. It's actually the same difference and the same question that is as old as the Reformation itself and which we have been debating ever since; does free will exist? If free will can be proven to exist, then the Calvinist becomes an open theist by default. They already share the same metaphysical assumption about God's knowledge and the nature of reality. And almost nobody thinks that a person is a heretic just because they believe or don't believe in free will.
 
That's the rub. Boyd's definition of omniscience is that God knows the future exhaustively; but the nature of reality is such that because the future is partly composed of possibilities, God can only know the future as possibilities (except for those things which He has determined). He would compare this to creating a rock that God cannot lift. If the future is partly composed of possibilities and partly of certainties, then God knows it exhaustively as such.

The point I've been making is that Calvinists who attack middle knowledge on the basis that God cannot know things which He has not decreed into existence share a common metaphysical assumption with Greg Boyd and the other open theists.
So He does not know the future if it can possibly change. Logically.

If God knows the future it has truth value. If it were to change that what God knows of the future is untrue.
 
So He does not know the future if it can possibly change. Logically.

If God knows the future it has truth value. If it were to change that what God knows of the future is untrue.
This false god they preach is a weakling. Are we to seriously believe they would bow to this god and give him praise? It looks to me as if they got the goods on this god, he's a pushover.

This reminds me of the man behind the curtain in The Wizard of Oz. They pulled back the curtain to reveal that the one behind everything was a contemptible person. This was the objective of that movie, to make a mockery of God.
 
This false god they preach is a weakling. Are we to seriously believe they would bow to this god and give him praise? It looks to me as if they got the goods on this god, he's a pushover.
When you're on the 100th round of chess with the Lord and he has beaten you every time because He knows every possible move you could make after every turn, let's see if you call him a "weakling" and a "pushover" for beating you without the advantage of a crystal ball.
 
So He does not know the future if it can possibly change. Logically.

If God knows the future it has truth value. If it were to change that what God knows of the future is untrue.
But if He exhaustively knows the possibilities then those possibilities also have truth value. In other words, He exhaustively knows the possibilities of what I might choose to eat for lunch on Sunday, so no matter what I eat, He will have known that to be a possibility from eternity past. On the other hand, the possibility that I will receive an offer to be an NFL quarterback is zero. As a possibility, it has no truth value. And God knows this to have no truth value.

edit to add: it may be that at one time it was possible that I would receive an offer to be an NFL quarterback. But at some point in my life that possibility was reduced to zero...and the Lord would have known this possibility and the truth value of it as my life developed.
 
But if He exhaustively knows the possibilities then those possibilities also have truth value. In other words, He exhaustively knows the possibilities of what I might choose to eat for lunch on Sunday, so no matter what I eat, He will have known that to be a possibility from eternity past. On the other hand, the possibility that I will receive an offer to be an NFL quarterback is zero. As a possibility, it has no truth value. And God knows this to have no truth value.

edit to add: it may be that at one time it was possible that I would receive an offer to be an NFL quarterback. But at some point in my life that possibility was reduced to zero...and the Lord would have known this possibility and the truth value of it as my life developed.
Omniscience knows no possibilities. God knows it because it's true. All truth is found in God. If it's possible what God foresees does not come about then what He foresees is untrue and He is not omniscient.
 
Back
Top